In my article, “Measuring extraordinary rendition and international cooperation” I present a model that can be used to measure extraordinary rendition and identify international cooperation in the Central Intelligence Agency’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program using public flight data and information on rendition flight characteristics. My analysis identifies 307 new likely rendition flights and 15 previously unidentified countries potentially involved. In response, Blakeley and Raphael argue that these results do not move beyond what they have already published, and also challenge the claim that these flights are “likely rendition flights” as they have not been triangulated by further evidence. However, it seems inconsistent to claim both that: (a) the findings are not new; and (b) the findings are wrong. I respond to their concerns by providing a detailed evaluation of my results in relation to their own findings. I demonstrate that there are important differences between the results in Blakeley and Raphael’s previous work and my own. I reinforce my earlier claim that triangulating these new results with reliable qualitative evidence is a crucial step.

中文翻译：

---

衡量非凡的演绎和国际合作：对布莱克利和拉斐尔的回应

在我的文章“衡量特殊引渡和国际合作”中，我提出了一个模型，该模型可用于使用公共飞行数据和关于引渡飞行特征的信息来衡量非常引渡并确定中央情报局的引渡、拘留和审讯计划中的国际合作。我的分析确定了 307 个新的可能的引渡航班和 15 个以前未确定的可能涉及的国家。作为回应，布莱克利和拉斐尔辩称，这些结果并没有超出他们已经发表的内容，并且还挑战了这些飞行“可能是再现飞行”的说法，因为它们没有得到进一步的证据三角测量。然而，同时声称以下两者似乎不一致：(a) 发现不是新的；(b) 结果是错误的。我通过提供与他们自己的调查结果相关的我的结果的详细评估来回应他们的担忧。我证明 Blakeley 和 Raphael 之前的工作与我自己的结果之间存在重要差异。我重申了我之前的说法，即用可靠的定性证据对这些新结果进行三角测量是关键的一步。